Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a nice
way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:26 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> That wasn't really my most important point.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've
> now
> > gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next
> time.
> > Just shush.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>
> >>> I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
> >>> compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
> >>>
> >>> Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
> >>> AI: 2
> >>> Author: Trigon
> >>> Co-authors:
> >>>
> >>> Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
> >>>
> >>> The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
> >>> possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
> >>> player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
> >>> player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
> >>> such players.
> >>>
> >>> For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
> >>> who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
> >>>
> >>> For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
> >>> "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
> >>> is in."
> >>
> >> I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
> >> calculated and thus cannot be flipped.
> >>
> >> Also, this is simply graph theory:
> >>
> >> {{{
> >> The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the
> players,
> >> and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them
> has
> >> the other set as their master switch.
> >>
> >> For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who
> is
> >> in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound
> player"
> >> a player who is not.
> >> }}}
> >>
> >>> Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
> >>>
> >>> When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
> >>> that entity SHALL do one of the following:
> >>>
> >>> 1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
> >>> unbound players;
> >>> 2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
> >>> 3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
> >>> 4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
> >>> unit by at least 1;
> >>> 5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
> >>> 6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
> >>> actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
> >>
> >> Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that
> >> those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
> >> transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow
> them
> >> to benefit only each other.
> >>
> >> And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Ørjan.
> >>
> >
>
